Sonny Lyne [2019] EWCA Crim 1313

R v Sonny Kevin Lyne [2019] EWCA Crim 1313 concerned an appeal against an extended sentence imposed for wounding with intent following a knife attack on a former school friend. The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Singh, Mr Justice Nicol and Sir John Royce) refused the renewed application for leave to appeal.

In the Crown Court at Taunton on 11 October 2018, His Honour Judge Cook sentenced Mr Lyne following his guilty plea to wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and to having a blade in a public place contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Mr Lyne, who had initially pleaded not guilty to count 1, changed his plea to guilty on 17 August 2018 and had pleaded guilty to count 3 on 12 July 2018. The judge imposed an extended sentence of ten years, comprising a custodial term of eight years and an extended licence period of two years, together with a concurrent term of one year’s imprisonment for the bladed article offence.

The offence arose on 18 April 2018. Mr Lyne and the victim, Mr Oscar Evett, had been friends at school but had not seen each other for some time. They met by chance and arranged to meet for drinks that evening. After drinking at a public house and continuing at a friend’s house, Mr Lyne called a friend for a lift home in the early hours. While being driven in the friend’s van, an altercation occurred between Mr Lyne and the driver. They drove to a supermarket car park, where Mr Evett got out and sat on a step, intending to make his own way home. Mr Lyne sat down beside him, then produced a bread knife from his sleeve and swung it downwards, striking Mr Evett on the head. He swung the knife a second time at Mr Evett’s face, which the victim managed to avoid. He then swung it a third time horizontally, slashing Mr Evett across the face. Mr Evett fled. The police arrested Mr Lyne at his home, where they found his bloodstained clothing and the bloodstained bread knife. Mr Evett was taken to hospital with a wound running from his nose to his chin requiring surgery and 80 stitches, and a two centimetre wound to the back of his head which was stapled.

Two victim personal statements were before the court. Mr Evett’s mother provided a statement on 18 May 2018 in which she explained that her son could not yet bring himself to provide one. She described how his life had been turned upside down; he had lost his job as a labourer on a building site and could not return to work. The scar on his face caused him intense embarrassment, leading him to conceal his face whenever possible and making him reluctant to meet friends with children for fear of frightening them. Mr Evett’s own statement, dated 10 October 2018, explained that he had lost not only his job but also his flat as a consequence. He said the pain had been horrendous and the incident terrifying. He was reminded of it every time he looked in a mirror. He was still unable to talk properly and had developed depression.

Mr Lyne, aged 23 at sentence and born on 21 July 1996, had seven previous court appearances for fourteen offences between 2013 and 2015. These included assaulting a constable in 2013, battery and criminal damage in 2014, and threatening behaviour in 2015. All had resulted in non-custodial sentences. The judge noted that one of the assaults had been on a female stranger whom Mr Lyne attacked for refusing to give him a lift home. He had not offended at this level of violence previously.

The judge had a psychiatric report from Dr MacGregor-Morris, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. Dr MacGregor-Morris recorded that Mr Lyne had a traumatic early life during which he witnessed severe domestic violence and was subjected to verbal and physical abuse by his father. At 15 he was diagnosed with ADHD and was later prescribed anti-psychotic medication. As an adult, he described hearing voices telling him to harm himself or others. His presentation was complicated by the use of illicit substances. He was not physically dependent except on codeine for a period. Health services had wondered about psychosis, possibly drug-induced, or schizophrenia, but Dr MacGregor-Morris said the preferred diagnosis was emotionally unstable personality disorder. She agreed with the prison’s assessment that he suffered from adult ADHD. She concluded that he did not suffer from psychosis and did not meet the criteria for schizophrenia. His ADHD needed treatment and he might benefit from psychological therapy. A mental health disposal was not appropriate and a hospital order was not recommended; his needs could be met within a custodial setting.

The pre-sentence report explained that Mr Lyne said he had no memory of the offence due to misuse of prescription medication, alcohol consumption and destabilised mental health. He expressed remorse, guilt and shame, acknowledged the significant harm caused and made no effort to minimise the harm or justify his actions. The probation officer identified an established pattern of offending and noted that the current offence represented an escalation in seriousness. There was an identifiable link between his drug misuse and the risk he posed. Much of his offending occurred when he was not in control of his own thinking and behaviour. He said his mental health always deteriorated as a result of drug use, and he drank on top of prescription medication to relieve the effects of his mental health. He had engaged fully with the Mental Health In-reach Team in custody. The probation officer noted Dr MacGregor-Morris’s view that he did not suffer from psychosis. The present and previous offending evidenced a pattern of impulsive, violent behaviour. The current offence demonstrated his capacity to cause serious harm. His violence was not limited to strangers but could extend to friends if he felt mistreated. He could act in an unpredictable and explosive manner if he perceived this was justified. He was assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to known adults and the public. If not sentenced to custody, he would continue to pose an imminent risk of serious harm that could not be managed under a community sentence.

In passing sentence, the judge summarised the facts and the victim personal statements, noting that he had seen the photographs showing Mr Evett’s dreadful injuries. He noted Mr Lyne’s age, previous convictions and the fact that he had not offended between 2015 and 2018. In mitigation it was argued that the danger arose only if he was misusing alcohol, that the criteria for an extended sentence were not met because the current offence had been committed out of the blue, that he had a limited criminal history with no pattern of behaviour, and that this might be seen as a one-off offence for which a determinate sentence would suffice. The judge noted the pre-sentence report’s account of periods of homelessness, that Mr Lyne was homeless at the time of the present offence, that he had left mainstream education at 13, had struggled with relationships and emotions, and had misused cannabis since 16 as well as cocaine and heroin. Drug misuse was linked to his offending. At the time of the offence, he was drinking eight cans of lager a day.

The judge considered that, by reference to the Sentencing Council guideline on assault, this was a sustained assault. Serious injury had been caused which required 80 stitches. It was clearly greater harm. Mr Lyne had used a weapon and intended to commit more serious harm than had resulted. The least starting point for a determinate sentence after trial would be twelve years. That was increased, taking into account the ongoing effect on the victim and Mr Lyne’s previous convictions. But it was mitigated by his remorse, age and mental health. Those matters in combination brought the starting point back to twelve years. Although Mr Lyne had initially pleaded not guilty, the judge said he would give full credit for the plea of guilty. Culpability had been admitted on the first occasion and the subsequent delay in changing plea was to allow the defence solicitors an appropriate opportunity to make proper investigations. The custodial term was therefore reduced to eight years. Mr Lyne had been convicted of a specified offence. The judge was required to consider dangerousness and whether he presented a significant risk of causing serious harm by committing further specified offences. The judge was satisfied that Mr Lyne did present such a risk and that there was an emerging pattern of impulsive violence. The judge was clear that an extended sentence did not automatically follow from a finding of dangerousness, but he thought the public could not be adequately protected unless an extended sentence was passed.

Mr Patrick Mason, who had represented Mr Lyne at the sentencing hearing, appeared pro bono before the Court of Appeal. He argued first that the judge was not entitled to find that Mr Lyne posed a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public. He submitted that there was nothing in the previous convictions which suggested dangerousness. There had been no offending for four years before the present offence. The pre-sentence report was wrong to suggest that Mr Lyne was prone to impulsive behaviour; the single incident did not justify that conclusion. The present offence had caused a vivid injury and Mr Mason argued that the judge had been over-influenced by this. Secondly, Mr Mason submitted that the custodial term was manifestly excessive. Of the three blows, only two connected, which did not amount to a sustained attack for the purposes of the guideline. He argued that the injury was not serious when seen in the context of section 18 offences generally and that the offence should have been treated as towards the lower end of category 1 or in category 2.

The single judge in refusing leave stated that the judge was right to take the view that this was a category 1 offence within the guideline for section 18 offences. Greater harm was plainly caused by the very serious knife wound to Mr Evett’s face that required 80 stitches. He had been left with extremely serious facial scarring and psychological injury. Higher culpability was clearly established by the use of a knife and by the finding that the judge was entitled to make, that Mr Lyne intended to commit even more serious harm. The offence was aggravated by his previous record of offending and particularly his convictions for violence, the ongoing effects upon Mr Evett, and the commission of the offence while drunk. The judge was entitled to take the view that such aggravating features were balanced by the mitigating factors, namely his age, mental health and remorse, thereby bringing him back to the starting point of twelve years. The sentence of eight years after full credit for the guilty plea was entirely appropriate. Having considered the facts of the offence, Mr Lyne’s previous convictions, the pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report, the judge was entitled to find that he was dangerous within the meaning of section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Accordingly, the judge was entitled to pass an extended sentence. The extension period of two years was just and proportionate and was not such as to crush him.

Mr Justice Nicol, giving the judgment of the court, said that it was sufficient to say that, having reviewed all the papers and notwithstanding Mr Mason’s submissions both written and oral, the court entirely agreed with the single judge. In short, the renewed application was refused, the sentence having been entirely appropriate for a sustained and serious knife attack causing lasting injury and significant psychological harm to the victim, committed by an offender who posed a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public.